LINCY EARNEST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the applicant in Original Application No. 838 of 2017 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short], wherein he had impugned an order issued by the respondents transferring him from the office of the Garrison Engineer (Maintenance) , Eazhimala to Liason Cell, Trivandrum. The learned Tribunal considered the challenge impelled by the petitioner but was pleased to dismiss the Original Application finding that he does not have any vested right to claim immunity from transfer and also because the relevant instructions and rules prohibit the continuation in offices or posts belong to a "complex" beyond the period of more than six years under the services of the Military Engineering Services. The petitioner impugns the order of the Tribunal on several grounds; primarily, asserting that there are atleast two more vacancies at Ezhimala in the same post and that it is, therefore, unnecessary for the authorities to have transferred him.

(2.) We have heard Sri. R. Sreeraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. V. Vinu, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner, as we can see from the averments on record, is presently working as Office Superintendent at the office of the Garrison Engineering (M) , Ezhimala. He was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 25.01980 and promoted as an Upper Division Clerk during the year 2001 and subsequently, as an Assistant [which post is now called Assistant Administrative Officer] on 11.11.2011. He was working at Karvar which is classified as a "hard tenure station" and on his request, he was transferred in the year 2011 to Ezhimala. We are told that Ezhimala is also a hard tenure station and that as per the guide lines of transfer, there is no fixed tenure with respect to a post in such a station. The petitioner says that since no tenure has been fixed and since his request for transfer was to Kannur and not to Trivandrum, he need not have been ordered to be transferred through the impugned order, especially because no other person has been ordered to be posted in his substitution from any other station.